JUDGMENT : These Writ Petitions pertain to a dispute regarding the absorption of contingent workers (sanitation) in the 3 rd respondent Municipality. The issue concerns the priority/preference in the matter of absorption between those appointed through the employment exchange and those appointed other than by way of sponsorship from the employment exchange. 2. Through Ext.P10 judgment in WP(C) Nos.20810/2008 and 37079/2015 dated 5 th April 2017, this Court after referring to the relevant Government Orders on the issue and considering the rival contentions, remitted the matter to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in accordance with the provisions of Section 57 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 . There was a direction to consider the claims of both parties. The Government was thereafter directed to take a decision based on the report of the Tribunal. 3. It is submitted that the Tribunal considered reference No.03/2013 as regards the decision of the Moovattupuzha Municipality dated 28.09.2012 and the two orders issued by the Secretary of the Municipality dated 01.10.2012 and 20.12.2012 through which, the substitute workers were given appointment in the cadre of contingent employees, allegedly in violation of the Government Orders dated 22.04.1982 and 29.03.2001. 4. The Tribunal after examining the relevant Government Orders found that as on the date of arising of a vacancy, if anyone from the list of workers prepared and who were sponsored by the employment exchange is available, irrespective of the date of inclusion of them in the said list, preference should be given to them, compared to the persons, who were not sponsored by the employment exchange. Though the reference was answered on 29 th July 2017, the Government has not taken a final decision as enjoined under Section 57 of the Municipality Act. 5. Writ Petition No.29116 of 2018 is filed for a direction, commanding respondents 1 and 3 to grant permanent appointment to the petitioners in accordance with P12 report of the Tribunal or in other words seeking implementation of the reference order of the Tribunal. WP(C) No.23041 of 2020 is filed challenging the Government Order dated 18.10.2013, Ext.P3 and also Ext.P5, the reference order, whose implementation is sought in the connected Writ Petition. 6. It is not disputed that this Court had relegated the matter to the Tribunal as per Ext.P10 order in WP(C) No.29116 of 2018. WP(C) No.23041 of 2020 is filed challenging the Government Order dated 18.10.2013, Ext.P3 and also Ext.P5, the reference order, whose implementation is sought in the connected Writ Petition. 6. It is not disputed that this Court had relegated the matter to the Tribunal as per Ext.P10 order in WP(C) No.29116 of 2018. The operative portion of Ext.P10, reads as follows:- “In the above circumstances, as the petitioners are seeking implementation of Ext.P6, which is yet to be finalised, in view of Ext.P7 order of the LSGT, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions for appropriate decision in accordance with law. The petitioners as well as party respondents and the Municipality would be free to furnish additional statements if any before the Tribunal, with copy to the other side, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, in which case the Tribunal shall consider those statements also, before issuing orders based on the reference in Ext.P6. The claim of either parties shall be subject to the decision to be taken by the Government on the basis of the report of the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall take earnest efforts to pass orders within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The Government shall thereafter take a decision based on the report, within a further period of two months. The registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions.” 7. This Court clearly directed the Tribunal to consider either party's claims and the Government to take a decision based on the Tribunal's report. The report filed by the Municipality dated 20.11.2023 also states that the Government has to take a decision based on the Tribunal's report. 8. The relevant provisions of the Municipality Act reads as follows:- “[57. This Court clearly directed the Tribunal to consider either party's claims and the Government to take a decision based on the Tribunal's report. The report filed by the Municipality dated 20.11.2023 also states that the Government has to take a decision based on the Tribunal's report. 8. The relevant provisions of the Municipality Act reads as follows:- “[57. POWER TO SUSPEND AND CANCEL RESOLUTIONS ETC .— (1) The Government may, suo-motu or on a reference by the Chairperson the Secretary, or a Councillor of the Municipality or on a petition received from a citizen, cancel or amend a resolution passed or a decision taken by the council, which in their opinion,- (a) has not been legally passed or taken; or (b) is in excess or abuse of the powers conferred by this Act or any other law; or (c) is likely to endanger human life, health safety, communal harmony or public peace, or is likely to lead to a riot or quarrel; or (d) has violated the guidelines issued by the Government in the matter of implementation of plans, schemes or programmes or the conditions of grants. (2) Before cancelling or amending a resolution or decision under sub-section (1), the Government shall refer the matter for the consideration of the Ombudsman constituted under Section 271 G of the "Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994(13 of 1994) or to the Tribunal for the Local Self Government Institutions constituted under Section 271 S of the said Act and the Tribunal shall, after giving the Municipality an opportunity of being heard, furnish a report to the Government with its finding based on which the Government may cancel, amend or approve that resolution or decision. (3) The Government shall not entertain any petition for cancellation or amendment of any resolution or decision of the council if an alternate redressal is available to the petitioner through the Tribunal under section 509. (4) Where the Government are of opinion that a resolution or a decision of the Council shall be cancelled or amended under sub- section (1), they may temporarily stay the implementation of Such resolution or decision and may direct the council to keep its implementation in abeyance till it is finally disposed of by completing the procedure under subsection (2)].” 9. Section 57(2) of the Act gives power to the Government to refer a matter for consideration of the Ombudsman constituted under Section 271 G of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act or to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in the matter of a challenge to a resolution or a decision taken by the council. It is not necessary that in every case, the matter should be referred by the Government to the Tribunal or Ombudsman for decision as stated above. It would be an option for the Government to refer the matter to the Tribunal, which then will furnish a report to the Government with its findings, based on which the Government may cancel, amend or approve the resolution or decision. It is an enabling power to the Government and not mandatorily to be followed in every case. 10.A reading of Section 57(2) of the Act also shows that it is not as if the Government should ipso facto accept the report submitted by the Tribunal as it has the ultimate power to decide whether to cancel/amend or approve the decision based on the finding of the Tribunal in its report. 11. In view of the above and also the direction in Ext.P10 judgment, there cannot be any direction either to enforce the order of reference to the Tribunal or to hold that the same is wrong in any manner. The prayers sought for in these Writ Petitions as such cannot be granted. However, though a time limit was fixed in Ext.P10 itself, it is submitted by all parties that no final decision has been taken by the Government. 12. Under such circumstances, there will be direction to the State of Kerala represented by the Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Thiruvananthapuram to take a final decision on the issue based on its reference to the Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, as mandated under Section 57(2) of the Act and after taking into account the report submitted by the Tribunal. Before a decision is taken, all the parties in the Writ Petitions shall be heard and a decision to be taken in accordance with law. Till a decision, as directed above is taken, the status quo as of today regarding the dispute shall be maintained. Accordingly, both these Writ Petitions are disposed of.